Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hazle v. Crofoot

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 21, 2010

BARRY A. HAZLE, JR., PLAINTIFF,
v.
MITCH CROFOOT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PAROLE OFFICER OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BRENDA WILDING, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS UNIT SUPERVISOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MATTHEW CATE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; SCOTT KERNAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHIEF DEPUTY SECRETARY OF ADULT OPERATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; TIM HOFFMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF ADULT PAROLE OPERATIONS IN CALIFORNIA; DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JALLINGS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF THE BOARD OF PRISON HEARINGS; WESTCARE, A NEVADA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING WESTCARE'S REQUEST FOR MORE TIME TO FILE AN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S CROSS MOTION

Defendant Westcare California Inc. ("Westcare") filed an eX parte objection to what it argues is Plaintiff's untimely filing of a cross motion for partial summary judgment (Plaintiff's cross motion"). Westcare argues Plaintiff's cross-motion was filed in contravenion of the Court's scheduling order. Westcare's position is arguable and could be correct. However, rather than reaching this issue and deciding whether the last law and motion hearing date prescribed in the scheduling order precluded a party from filing a related or counter motion prescribed in Local Rule 230(e), a Minute Order was filed on January 20, 2010 setting forth a briefing scheduling for Plaintiff's cross-motion. Westcare states in its ex parte objection that it requests "at least three weeks to file an opposition to [P]laintiff's cross motion." This request is granted. Therefore, Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's cross motion shall be filed by February 5, 2010. Any reply shall be filed by February 12, 2010. The cross motion will be heard on February 22, 2010, commencing at 9:00 a.m.

20100121

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.